Arrumou Neural

Alterar número de hóspedes

update_reservation_guests

Destructive

Altera adultos/crianças da estadia (pode recalcular diárias). Exige aprovação.

Escopo: reservations:write · Risco: consequential (prévia + aprovação do usuário obrigatória) · Efeitos: Atualiza ocupação e diárias. · INDISPONÍVEL nesta autorização (escopo não concedido ou papel sem o módulo)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "adults": "<adults>",
      "children": "<children>"
    },
    "name": "update_reservation_guests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`adults`	Yes
`children`	Yes
`approval_id`	No	Id de uma aprovação já decidida pelo usuário para esta mesma ação. Omita para receber a prévia e o link de aprovação.
`idempotency_key`	No	Chave de idempotência escolhida pelo cliente; repetir a chave com os mesmos dados devolve o mesmo resultado.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by naming the required scope (reservations:write), classifying the risk as consequential with a mandatory preview-and-approval flow, and disclosing the side effects (occupancy and daily-rate values are updated). It also flags that the tool is currently unavailable under this authorization, which an agent must know before attempting a call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the rate-recalculation caveat, then structured metadata lines for scope/risk/effects. Compact overall, though the availability notice reads as boilerplate appended to the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important contract: approval gating, side effects, and permission scope. It does not say what the preview/approval response looks like or whether the change can be reverted, but nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40%, so the description must carry weight: it explains the adults/children semantics and the approval requirement, but says nothing about the `id` parameter (reservation identifier) or the idempotency key. It partially compensates but leaves undocumented fields unexplained beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: changes the stay's adult/child counts and warns that daily rates may be recalculated. This clearly separates it from siblings like change_reservation_dates or change_reservation_room without needing to open the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the prerequisite that user approval is required (preview + approval), which is the key gating condition before invocation. It does not name alternative tools or say when not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Arrumou Neural tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.